MovieChat Forums > Arrival (2016) Discussion > Engrossing film but why was it so dark?

Engrossing film but why was it so dark?

posted 8 years ago by spookyrat1
7 replies | jump to latest

Some scenes were just ridiculously dim. Forest Whitaker kept disappearing into the background and no, my screen contrast didn't need adjusting. 🐭

[–] liscarkat (19418) 8 years ago

He's naturally camouflaged.

[–] MikeCable (1915) 8 years ago

The film did have a lot of particular styling going on. Life would be boring if everything was the same!

[–] TexasJack (12516) 8 years ago

With the way they are making movies these days, I automatically give a minimum 6/10 to any film where I can both see and hear what's going on.

[–] johnmiller (4011) 8 years ago

These young cinematographers seem to want to play with "how dark can I go?" And, the answer is: As dark as you want, but it's going to look like @#$%. This is easily one of the most unattractive movies I have seen this decade. Which is, of course, why it was nominated for an Oscar for cinematography.

[–] TexasJack (12516) 8 years ago

Maybe studios will start offering an alternate cut with more lighting as a blu-ray extra.

[–] johnmiller (4011) 8 years ago

Plus, include a tutorial for these cinematographers on how to light a scene. :-)

[–] Tutankhamun (85) 8 years ago

[deleted]